Kurt Nimmo
September 29, 2009

It looks like an attack on Iran is a fait accompli. It’s just a matter of timing at this point. Reading the corporate media — and much of the so-called “progressive” media — one hears what amounts to a chant: Iran has nukes, Iran has nukes… or they will very soon.

Under the U.S. client Shah Pahlavi, it was acceptable for Iran to develop nuclear energy.

In fact, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. It does not have the capability to build one solitary nuclear bomb, crude or otherwise. Iran has not enriched uranium to the point required to make a bomb. It has enriched uranium for nuclear energy. Iran’s uranium enrichment is less than five percent and consistent with fuel for a civilian nuclear power plant. Iran has imposed restrictions on its enrichment program including ratifying the Additional Protocol to allow more stringent inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, operating the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz as a multinational fuel center with the participation of foreign representatives, renouncing plutonium reprocessing and immediately fabricating all enriched uranium into reactor fuel rods. The IAEA has repeatedly said Iran is not enriching nuclear-weapons grade uranium.

But this does not matter. The U.S. government and its European partners, Israel, and the corporate media have repeated the lie that Iran is building a nuclear bomb so often that millions of people believe it and think Iran is a threat. Even peacenik liberals who mistrusted Bush and the neocons now believe Iran is a threat. They just disagree on how this manufactured and phantom threat should be addressed.

“Today Slashdot, a popular news and current affairs discussion site, has run a discussion entitled ‘Iran’s nuclear ambitions’ which underscores the tenor of the topic. Slashdot’s readership tends to be pretty politically independent and have above average education, so one would think they’d be more skeptical about the case for war than the average voter,” writes Jason Ditz. “And there is a pretty even split between pro-war and anti-war positions on the discussion. Lots of grousing about empire. Lots of mentioning Israel. But there is one thing you won’t see, and that’s any serious questioning of whether or not Iran is creating nuclear weapons.”

Ditz says that regardless of what the U.S. intelligence community and the IAEA say — there is no indication Iran is building a bomb — “pretty much everyone takes Iran’s ‘nuclear ambitions’ for granted, and they are just split over whether or not its worth going to war over.”

Mr. Ditz also notes that while Slashdot’s readership does not see this as a good reason to attack Iran, this is basically irrelevant and the neocons — and their kissing cousins, the neoliberals in the Obama administration — have won.

It looks like mass murder before Christmas.

Keep in mind that when the “liberal” Clinton was in office, he had few problems with his “liberal” supporters when he attacked Serbia. Democrats stood behind Clinton’s mass murder campaign. “For many leading Democrats, including some in top positions in the Obama administration, it was a ‘good’ war, in contrast to the Bush administration’s ‘bad’ war on Iraq,” writes Stephen Zunes. “Unless there’s a willingness to critically re-examine the war, the threat of another war in the name of liberal internationalism looms large.”

Zunes points out that liberals supported the illegal and immoral bombing campaign because they “recognized the severity of the ongoing oppression of the Kosovar Albanians and the need to challenge Serbian ethno-fascism.”

[efoods]Serbian mistreatment of minorities was selectively focused on by the U.S. government for geopolitical reasons. “While showing themselves ready and willing to bomb Yugoslavia on behalf of an ostensibly oppressed minority in Kosovo, U.S. leaders have made no moves against the Czech Republic for its mistreatment of the Romany people (gypsies), or Britain for oppressing the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland, or the Hutu for the mass murder of a half million Tutsi in Rwanda,” writes historian Michael Parenti. “Nor have U.S. leaders considered launching “humanitarian bombings” against the Turkish people for what their leaders have done to the Kurds, or the Indonesian people because their generals killed over 200,000 East Timorese and were continuing such slaughter through the summer of 1999, or the Guatemalans for the Guatemalan military’s systematic extermination of tens of thousands of Mayan villagers.”

The problem with the Serbs and Yugoslavia was they were a viable nation and an economic success. Between 1960 and 1980 Yugoslavia had one of the most vigorous growth rates: a decent standard of living, socialist medical care and education, a guaranteed right to a job, one-month vacation with pay, a literacy rate of over 90 percent, and a life expectancy of 72 years, as Parenti notes.

“The dismemberment and mutilation of Yugoslavia was part of a concerted policy initiated by the United States and the other Western powers in 1989. Yugoslavia was the one country in Eastern Europe that would not voluntarily overthrow what remained of its socialist system and install a free-market economic order,” Parenti explains.

In short, it was a threat to the New World Order and the so-called “free traders,” that is to say the rape and pillage gang on Wall Street. It had to go — and in sensational fashion so other uppity states would get the message.

It was easy to sell the mass murder campaign to the liberals. Clinton sold it as humanitarian intervention. It was nothing of the sort.

iran iraq
The United States supported both sides during the Iran-Iraq War.

Iraq was dismembered under a different and more cynical pretense — Saddam represented a threat to his neighbors (this was the pretense under Bush Senior) and then under Bush the Lesser he was a threat to the United States itself with weapons of mass destruction and support for al-Qaeda. Of course, as I said at the time, these were transparent and easily debunked lies. It didn’t matter. The American people — habitually ignorant of history, geography, and politics — bought into the lies and supported Bush’s mass murder campaign.

Iraq was a lot like Yugoslavia. In the 1970s the country had well-developed health and education systems. People from around the Arab world went to Iraq to get a college education. Infant mortality and diseases were in decline. All of this changed when Iraq went to war with Iran in the 1980s. The war was encouraged and supported by the U.S. Reagan removed Iraq from the State Department list of known terrorist countries, sold chemical weapons to Saddam (including weapons grade anthrax and botulinum), and provided military logistics. At the same time, the U.S. agreed to facilitate the sale of arms to Iran through Israel. The eight year conflict resulted in nearly a million dead Iranians and Iraqis. Bush Senior’s invasion a few years later made a bad situation far worse.

Between the two Bush gangsters and Bill Clinton, the U.S. has killed well over 2 million Iraqis.

Obama will either sign off on an Israeli attack on Iran or he will direct the U.S. to bomb the country. Millions of liberals will support this because they are brainwashed by the government and the corporate media into the completely fallacious belief that Iran has nukes or will have them soon. Millions more will not directly support the coming mass murder campaign but will not raises their voices in opposition to Obama.

Opposition is irrelevant. Recall Bush arrogantly dismissing the antiwar movement as a “focus group.” Obama will ignore the small number of people who will go into the street on the day after Israel or the U.S. bombs Iran.

Obama is a puppet to the international bankers and the one-worlders and he will do as instructed.

Iran has to be reduced to a smoldering wasteland the same way Iraq was because it is outside the one-world loop. It does not take orders from Wall Street and the international bankers. Iran has its own ideas on how the country should be ruled and this is unacceptable.

It has nothing to do with nukes, the alleged antisemitism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or even the dictatorship of the clerics. The coming attack on Iran is about breaking the back of the Iranian people and killing off their leaders. It’s about making Iran part of the global slave plantation.

The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!

Related Articles